~Color's Relationship with the Stack~The stack obviously represents time, and colors treat it as such.

Blue - Blue enjoys playing with time, and thus manipulating cards on the stack. Blue doesn't really care much about the number of cards on the stack, however, and doesn't have much in the way of filling it up. However it can alter the way it progresses, and blue has had this ability ever since the classic counterspell.

Black - Black sees time as a weapon it can use against the opponent. Like blue, it doesn't care quite as much about the number of cards on the stack as other colors (though slightly more than blue), and instead prefers to hurt the opponent based on their relationship with time, i.e, the stack. This is flavorfully represented as black making things age quickly so as to harm them.

White - White, as the soldier's color, isn't quite as interested in the stack as other colors. However, as the army color, white knows that quick manuvers can be key in battle. Also, in its efforts to undermine black, it has effects controlling the stack and its power.

Red - Red sees time as something fun and powerful and thus likes seeing how it can use it to blow things up. Its a bit similar to blue in that it likes manipulation of the stack, however it isn't nearly as methodical about it and just likes throwing things at it. This randomness can get it in trouble sometimes (red has effects that can backfire if it is in the wrong position on the stack). Finally, Red considers time exciting and likes seeing just how big he can make that stack. The bigger, the more fun! In short, Red manipulates the stack like Blue, and grows the stack like Green, but does both in a rather haphazard but flashy manner.

Green - Green sees time as a natural force and thus a force that should be protected and nurtured. As such, green grows the stack like red, only much more carefully. Green also seeks to protect the stack from manipulation at the hands of Blue, Black, and to an extent, White.

~Keywords~Flash - This is incredibly key to the block. All colors have many cards with flash, with slightly less in white.

Affinity for Spells (For each spell on the stack, this card costs less.) - All colors have some of this keyword, though blue has less because it cares more about the manipulation of time than the amount of it which passes.

Warp [cost] (While this card is on the stack, you can pay [cost] and put this card on top of the stack.) - This is Blue's favorite keyword, and Black and Red like it too. None in green, at all.

Timebind - [effect]. This is not technically a keyword (its something like landfall). It does an effect (generally negative) to each player with a spell beneath it in the stack, once for each spell beneath it in the stack.

Instant Tokens - They are alive only while on the stack, and removed immediately afterward. Some spells are "split" into two effects, making them harder to counter and such, and helping grow the stack.

The lands should probably not have basic land types (since then they would be able to just tap for mana like a normal land). I don't know how I feel about mana production being possible to Force Spike, though.

Time Bolt is amazing and I love it. The rest are less interesting; the white and blue ones are pretty much the same thing ("nothing can be responded to").

Normal affinity only counts permanents that you control. Obviously you can broaden the definition to allow affinity for spells but if you want it to count your opponent's stuff as well you should use a new keyword.

From the sounds of the stack interactions are the incentive for casting cheap spells.I think the idea behing the lands with the instant token and basic land is that you can just produce the mana, or you can risk it being countered to build the stack for your other effects. Seems intriguing, though I already have a weakness for the stack matters. The biggest downside to this whole thing is that in MtG, the stack is sorta taboo. Only 22 cards refer to it, and all but 4 or 5 of those have split second.

I hope all this helps you to see things in a greater light—and understand that Magic: the Gathering was really created by extraterrestials using Richard Garfield as a medium. The game itself reflects the socio-psycho realtivity between living beings, and the science that takes precedence over them—to define reality for them all (like telekinesis, weather, scientific reaction, phenomenon, ingenuity, how the brain works, etc.). I'd also bet there is an entity floating thousands of miles above us, looking down on the current state of game, shaking its fist like... "Wtf are you doing?! You're getting it all screwed up!". Awkward—to be evolved, and yet still subject to the ladder that is the concepts of the game. In this case, misconception, corruption, and deception. With the realities of each color becoming distorted (through oblivious designers), leading the game to reflect a false state of reality that warps the understanding that other people have about those things. For example, people thinking that white could be anything except pure good. This shouldn't be too far off though, I mean...Magic is designed based on reality after all, so that entity (those entities) should be subject to those things. Anyways, I guess when you're busy doing space stuff you can't always be around to ensure quality control. It's no wonder they choose Garfield, they're so much alike; that's exactly what happened to him and Magic.

I'm not going to tell you this is is a good idea, but some things:1) Abilities go on the stack. Why not use this more? For instance, the land could just be ": Add to target player's mana pool. (This isn't a mana ability, and enters the stack.)"? It's not a mana ability because they can't target, for what it's worth.2) Warp could be "Warp (You may cast this spell for its warp cost while it's on the stack, before it resolves.)", potentially with an instant speed clause.

2) Warp could be "Warp (You may cast this spell for its warp cost while it's on the stack, before it resolves.)", potentially with an instant speed clause.

But then it wouldn't remove the one already on the stack...your version would basically duplicate the spell. That's not the same.

If you wanted to change the wording, it would be more like this:

"Warp (You may pay this spell's warp cost while it's on the stack, any time you could play an instant. If you do, exile this spell and cast it again without paying its mana cost.)"

But I see nothing wrong with the original wording if it's already in a stack-matters block.

All cards I make have artists credited in the appropriate places. Artist names in "quotes" are DeviantArt usernames unless otherwise mentioned.

"I play a Grave Betrayal. I get all your dead things now, mwahahahaha!"
"Okay. I play a Phage the Untouchable. Piss me off and I will sac it."
"... ... ... so guys, remind me again how to sac my own enchantments?"

No, it wouldnt create a copy, you'd be casting it from the stack, just as you can cast cards from the graveyard, it removes it from where it is and moves it to the top of the stack, but even better, it will trigger anything for casting things.

>initialize bummer protocolsWizards has gone on record saying that they don't mention the stack a lot, especially at lower rarities, because stack shenanigans don't come up super often and confuse the hell out of new players when they do.An entire block built around such shenanigans seems unlikely.

Oh, it's actually recast FROM the stack? That...is a weird concept to my mind. But I guess it works...

All cards I make have artists credited in the appropriate places. Artist names in "quotes" are DeviantArt usernames unless otherwise mentioned.

"I play a Grave Betrayal. I get all your dead things now, mwahahahaha!"
"Okay. I play a Phage the Untouchable. Piss me off and I will sac it."
"... ... ... so guys, remind me again how to sac my own enchantments?"

I'm not going to tell you this is is a good idea, but some things:1) Abilities go on the stack. Why not use this more? For instance, the land could just be ": Add to target player's mana pool. (This isn't a mana ability, and enters the stack.)"? It's not a mana ability because they can't target, for what it's worth.

I thought of that. I like spells.

2) Warp could be "Warp (You may cast this spell for its warp cost while it's on the stack, before it resolves.)", potentially with an instant speed clause.

That sounds blue though. Blue is the pretentious one. Green/Red especially would just refer to it as time.

From the sounds of the stack interactions are the incentive for casting cheap spells.I think the idea behing the lands with the instant token and basic land is that you can just produce the mana, or you can risk it being countered to build the stack for your other effects. Seems intriguing, though I already have a weakness for the stack matters. The biggest downside to this whole thing is that in MtG, the stack is sorta taboo. Only 22 cards refer to it, and all but 4 or 5 of those have split second.

But isn't that the whole point, new special thingies that make the block unique? I always have enjoyed blocks that legitly have a unique "____ matters" heart.

The lands should probably not have basic land types (since then they would be able to just tap for mana like a normal land). I don't know how I feel about mana production being possible to Force Spike, though.

Well, such a land obviously holds some advantages, and the potential for people to respond to it is the downside. Now I got this problem though: I think the lands will be too weak if they don't count as a forest, however I don't want them to have ": Add something to your mana pool." inherently. I always thought that rule was dumb and bad.

Time Bolt is amazing and I love it. The rest are less interesting; the white and blue ones are pretty much the same thing ("nothing can be responded to").

Yea, thats a bit of a sad one. I like the black one too, though. Maybe they should all be changed to a "the first time you resolve a spell each turn" thing.

Normal affinity only counts permanents that you control. Obviously you can broaden the definition to allow affinity for spells but if you want it to count your opponent's stuff as well you should use a new keyword.

Maybe it'd just be better to change it to counting spells you control.

As a quick asside: I am intentionally limiting this to spells at this point, because the moment you add in abilities some things might start getting uber wacky. Also the concept of "Affinity for spells" just sounds so cool. I wonder what else I could do "for spells"...

Which brings me to my second idea. A bit of a change from the original idea, but: How about a SPELLS matter block, rather than a STACK matters block. That seems like it has a little bit more design space. Note that it is actually far closer tied to the original idea than it may at first seem, considering spells are only spells while they're on the stack. However, due to the fact that you need spells in order for there to be any stack, I'm willing to stretch that definition a bit though.

The SPELL block would obviously be much like the LAND block except for spells rather than lands, of course. And instead of worrying about LANDfall, it would be worried about SPELLfall, which of course is, the stack.

Here are some of my ideas:

Spellwalk (If deffending player cast a spell this turn, this creature is unblockable)."Sacrificing" spells. Like:

Instashift InstantSacrifice a spell. Search your deck for one spell with an equal converted mana cost and cast that spell instead.

There is even potentially room for an uber broken mechanic I have always wanted... Spellcycling. D:

And, of course, instead of lands that come alive, spells that do.

Thoughtstealer SorceryTarget opponent reveals his or her hand. You choose a noncreature, nonland card from it. That player discards that card.Morph (You may cast this face-down as a 2/2 creature for . You may turn it face-up and cast it at any time for its morph cost.)

I especially like the morph idea because it secretly makes the thing an instant.

Anyways, what do you all think of warp? I looked at it again, it looked dumb. I'm thinking of trashing it and replacing it with morph.

Morph on spells has been done here many times, and it requires a major rework in the comp rules.

I honestly don't know who decided to make the Morph comprehensive rules but I hate them. It has killed so many good ideas. It "defines" face-down cards as 2/2s so I can't have my beloved cards that are lands while face-down, or cards that you slide off the top of your deck face-down, and it somehow disallows face-down non-permanents (non-creatures?) too! Those rules are bad bad bad.

I like morph, and the rules kinda have to be like that for it to work.

I mean that a cast creature is a creature spell until it moves to the battlefield, same with everything else. I wasn't sure if you meant your spells matter to only be instants and sorceries or everything.

I like morph, and the rules kinda have to be like that for it to work. I mean that a cast creature is a creature spell until it moves to the battlefield, same with everything else. I wasn't sure if you meant your spells matter to only be instants and sorceries or everything.

Oh yea, I mean everything (permanents that are cast as well) of course. When you first said that I thought there was some sort of mystical thing that was a spell while at the same time being a permanent on the battlefield :/